Environment blog + Renewable energy | The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog+renewableenergy
Indexen-gbGuardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2017Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:21:25 GMT2017-09-26T22:21:25Zen-gbGuardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2017The Guardianhttps://assets.guim.co.uk/images/guardian-logo-rss.c45beb1bafa34b347ac333af2e6fe23f.pnghttps://www.theguardian.com
Ten years after 'hug a husky', what is David Cameron's green legacy?https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2016/apr/20/david-cameron-hug-a-husky-green-legacy-10-years
<p> A decade ago today, the Conservative leader visited the Arctic to witness the effects of climate change. But since coming to power, his government has dropped or watered down a succession of green policies </p><p>It is one of the most successful political reinventions ever. In just a few years as its new leader, David Cameron turned around the Tories’ toxic “nasty party” image - at least with enough voters to form a coalition government. </p><p>One of the most eye-catching moments came 10 years ago today with his “hug a husky” trip to the Arctic to highlight the impact of climate change. It was followed by Cameron’s commitment to lead the “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/14/cameron-wants-greenest-government-ever">greenest government ever</a>”.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2016/apr/20/david-cameron-hug-a-husky-green-legacy-10-years">Continue reading...</a>EnvironmentGreen politicsDavid CameronGreen Investment BankSolar powerCarbon capture and storage (CCS)Greenhouse gas emissionsWind powerFrackingPollutionClimate changeEnergyCoalRenewable energyPoliticsUK newsFossil fuelsWed, 20 Apr 2016 14:04:24 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2016/apr/20/david-cameron-hug-a-husky-green-legacy-10-yearsPhotograph: POOL New / Reuters/REUTERSPhotograph: POOL New / Reuters/REUTERSAdam Vaughan2016-04-20T14:04:24ZHitler Rojas - the Peruvian farmer killed for opposing a mega-dam?https://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2016/jan/25/hitler-rojas-peruvian-killed-mega-dam
<p>Environmental leader and recently-elected mayor was one of the most outspoken defenders of the River Maranon. </p><p>Large hydro-electric power may be cleaner than dirty fossil fuels, but it’s still dirty, as <a href="http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/private-sector/news/2015/12/ten-reasons-why-climate-initiatives-should-not-include-large-hydr">170 organisations from around the world</a> told governments and financial institutions in a statement released during the UN climate talks in Paris in December. It’s a “false solution to climate change”, they argued, saying it emits “significant amounts of greenhouse gases”, inhibits rivers acting as “global carbon sinks”, makes “water and energy systems more vulnerable to climate change”, and causes “severe and often irreversible damage to critical ecosystems” - to say nothing of the negative impacts on local communities and the 40-80 million people, at least, who have been forcibly displaced to date. </p><p>A similar argument is made by the Yagén Defence Front (YDF) in Peru which is fighting the proposed construction of a 600 MW hydro-electric power project, Chadin 2, which would dam the River Maranon and flood 32.5 square kilometres, numerous villages, and extensive croplands and valleys high in biodiversity. “They told us [Chadin 2] will bring clean energy,” a 2013 YDF statement read, but “it will generate large quantities of methane that contributes enormously to global warming. . . [I]t will destroy almost all the varieties of fish in our river and it will force us out of our lands and displace us into places we don’t know. No project that destroys the natural world and causes social problems can be said to generate clean energy. It is a lie.” </p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2016/jan/25/hitler-rojas-peruvian-killed-mega-dam">Continue reading...</a>EnvironmentEnergyHydropowerRiversAmazon rainforestPeruRenewable energyMon, 25 Jan 2016 20:32:33 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2016/jan/25/hitler-rojas-peruvian-killed-mega-damPhotograph: Anon.Photograph: Anon.David Hill2016-01-25T20:32:33ZPeru planning to dam Amazon’s main source and displace 1000shttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2015/may/26/peru-amazon-main-source-dams-displacements
<p>Over 20 hydroelectric projects proposed for the main trunk of the River Maranon would have devastating impacts</p><p>Who said large-scale hydropower was out? As an article published by <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hydropower-investments-could-be-risky-bet-in-warming-world-18852">Climate Central</a> recently noted, it has now been omitted from the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) annual reports on renewable energy for eight years running, and “may be seen as a risky bet” for investors.</p><p>But Peru, together with one Brazilian company in particular, may have other ideas. As I recently reported in a series of articles for <a href="http://news.mongabay.com/2015/0428-sri-hill-peru-dam-projects.html">Mongabay</a>, Peru is proposing to build more than 20 dams on the main trunk of the currently free-flowing River Maranon, which births in the Andes and is the River Amazon’s main source. According to Peruvian engineer Jose Serra Vega, just four of these dams could cause the Maranon’s “biological death”, while US environmental anthropologist Paul Little believes it could contribute to the “eco-system collapse” of the Amazon basin as a whole.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2015/may/26/peru-amazon-main-source-dams-displacements">Continue reading...</a>EnvironmentPeruEnergyRenewable energyAmazon rainforestRiversTue, 26 May 2015 16:45:22 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2015/may/26/peru-amazon-main-source-dams-displacementsPhotograph: Luis Herrera‘No to Chadin 2’: a resident of Mendan, one of the many villages that would be flooded by the proposed Chadin 2 dam.Photograph: Luis Herrera‘No to Chadin 2’: a resident of Mendan, one of the many villages that would be flooded by the proposed Chadin 2 dam.Guardian Staff2015-05-26T16:45:22ZShould tackling climate change trump protecting nature? | Miles Kinghttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2015/jan/19/should-tackling-climate-change-trump-protecting-nature
<p>Planners have given the green light for a solar farm at Rampisham Down, a SSSI in West Dorset. But stopping biodiversity loss is as important as stopping global warming</p><p>Does the need to mitigate the effects of man-made climate change override the need to protect nature? <br></p><p>Climate change is with us, and is one of nine reasons why scientists <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/rate-of-environmental-degradation-puts-life-on-earth-at-risk-say-scientists?CMP=share_btn_tw">are now concerned</a> that the rate of environmental degradation is a threat to the future of human life on Earth. The loss of biodiversity, dubbed the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/14/earth-faces-sixth-great-extinction-with-41-of-amphibians-set-to-go-the-way-of-the-dodo">Sixth Green Extinction by some</a>, is another threat to humanity, with nearly half of the world’s amphibians and a fifth of its plants at risk of extinction.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2015/jan/19/should-tackling-climate-change-trump-protecting-nature">Continue reading...</a>WildlifeConservationSolar powerEnvironmentEnergyRenewable energyClimate changeBiodiversityMon, 19 Jan 2015 12:37:09 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2015/jan/19/should-tackling-climate-change-trump-protecting-naturePhotograph: Tim Ireland/PAPhotograph: Tim Ireland/PAMiles King2015-01-19T12:37:09ZNot investing in new nuclear power would be a costly gamble for the UK | Keith Parkerhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jul/23/investing-new-nuclear-power-uk-carbon-energy
<p>Nuclear must be a part of the UK's low carbon energy mix because renewable sources cannot provide power 24/7</p><p>"Nuclear power remains, prospectively, one of the cheapest low-carbon technologies and can play an important role as part of a cost-effective portfolio of technologies to decarbonise the power sector." As the Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, this is something you’d expect me to say, but this is the viewpoint of the Committee on Climate Change <a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/meeting-carbon-budgets-2014-progress-report-to-parliament/">in its progress report to Parliament earlier this month</a>. </p><p>Recently, Tom Burke wrote on these pages of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jul/10/edf-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-economic-bet">the "costly gamble" of investing in new nuclear because of rising renewable energy output</a>. I’m afraid that the "costly gamble" will be not investing in new nuclear plants. I’m not arguing against renewables, but it isn’t the answer alone. </p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jul/23/investing-new-nuclear-power-uk-carbon-energy">Continue reading...</a>Nuclear powerEnvironmentEnergyGreenhouse gas emissionsUK newsClimate changeRenewable energyWed, 23 Jul 2014 11:27:33 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jul/23/investing-new-nuclear-power-uk-carbon-energyPhotograph: Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesThe sun sets behind EDF's Hinkley Point B (left), and Hinkley Point A (right) nuclear power stations beside the Bristol Channel Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesPhotograph: Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesThe sun sets behind EDF's Hinkley Point B (left), and Hinkley Point A (right) nuclear power stations beside the Bristol Channel Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesKeith Parker2014-07-23T11:27:33ZEDF nuclear deal is a bad economic bethttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jul/10/edf-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-economic-bet
<p>Rising renewables output makes promise to buy Hinkley Point electricity at twice its current price a costly gamble <br></p><p>It has always been difficult to see what was attractive about the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/21/hinkley-point-nuclear-power-station-deal-announced-politics-live-blog">proposed deal with EDF to build a nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point in Somerset</a>. To bring this off the government is offering to sell 35 years of index-linked tax receipts to the French government to buy electricity at twice its current price. </p><p>This is a very big bet on the ability of EDF to build a reactor on time and to budget – a feat they have never accomplished with the reactor type we are buying. It is an even bigger bet on the price of electricity doubling. If it fails to do so then the government will have to pay EDF even more subsidy.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jul/10/edf-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-economic-bet">Continue reading...</a>Nuclear powerEnergyEnergy efficiencyRenewable energyUK newsEnergy industryEDF EnergyBusinessThu, 10 Jul 2014 11:12:07 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jul/10/edf-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-economic-betPhotograph: Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesThe sun reflects on the front of Hinkley Point A nuclear power station besides near Bridgwater on November 12, 2013 in Somerset. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesPhotograph: Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesThe sun reflects on the front of Hinkley Point A nuclear power station besides near Bridgwater on November 12, 2013 in Somerset. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesTom Burke2014-07-10T11:12:07ZWhy is there no Manhattan Project to tackle climate change? | Tom Delayhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/mar/11/why-no-manhattan-project-climate-change
<p>We must overcome short-termism, inconvenient truths and cuts to R&amp;D and find the Brunels of low carbon technology</p><p>Here’s a thought. If necessity is the motherhood of invention how come we are so far away from the wholesale deployment of low carbon energy technologies that can redeem humanity from the worst impacts of climate change? </p><p>With carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere rising steeply since the industrial revolution and extreme weather events now occurring with greater frequency around the world, and closer to home, one would be forgiven for thinking that the race for low and carbon free alternatives to powering our lives would be at full throttle and on its last lap. Think again.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/mar/11/why-no-manhattan-project-climate-change">Continue reading...</a>Renewable energyEnergy efficiencyGreenhouse gas emissionsClimate changeCarbon capture and storage (CCS)Wind powerTue, 11 Mar 2014 11:05:05 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/mar/11/why-no-manhattan-project-climate-changePhotograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesA boat passes between wind turbines at the London Array project, the world's largest windfarm Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesPhotograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesA boat passes between wind turbines at the London Array project, the world's largest windfarm Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesTom Delay2014-03-11T11:05:05ZCommunity energy strategy? Our hydropower scheme was on its ownhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/2014/jan/28/community-hydropower-energy-strategy-halton-lune
As the government <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-energy-strategy" title="">finally publishes its community energy strategy</a>, <strong>Alison Cahn</strong> reflects on how much easier her hydro scheme near Lancaster would have been with a bit of guidance<p>It's nearly a year since <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2013/feb/14/community-energy-hydroelectric-lancaster-cohousing" title="">I wrote about my community's attempt to get a hydro scheme constructed</a> on the River Lune, near Lancaster. I explained how hard it is for people like us – mostly volunteers with jobs and family responsibilities – to navigate the bureaucracy and other obstacles which face any group wanting to build a community energy scheme.</p><p>Little did I realise then that it would take another ten months to get <a href="http://www.haltonlunehydro.org/" title="">Halton Lune Hydro</a> to the point where we can start constructing our 200kW, 1000 MWh-pa hydro, which should eventually produce enough clean electricity to power over 300 homes and save 500 tonnes of carbon.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/2014/jan/28/community-hydropower-energy-strategy-halton-lune">Continue reading...</a>HydropowerCommunitiesEnergyRenewable energyEnvironmentSocietyEnergy efficiencyEthical and green livingEnergyTechnologyTue, 28 Jan 2014 11:12:33 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/2014/jan/28/community-hydropower-energy-strategy-halton-lunePhotograph: Luke MillsHalton Lune Hydro has only managed to get off the ground due to the skills and perseverance of those involved. Photograph: Luke MillsPhotograph: Luke MillsHalton Lune Hydro has only managed to get off the ground due to the skills and perseverance of those involved. Photograph: Luke MillsAlison Cahn2014-01-28T11:12:33ZEU sets targets of 40% carbon cut and 27% share of renewables by 2030 – livehttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/22/eu-energy-and-climate-targets-live
<p>Rolling coverage and reaction on Europe announcing a new 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target</p>
<p>&bull; <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/22/eu-energy-and-climate-targets-live#block-52dfa6d8e4b0f7ffe46e7182">Europe to cut emissions 40% on 1990 levels by 2030</a></p>
<p>&bull; <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/22/eu-energy-and-climate-targets-live#block-52dfa6d8e4b0f7ffe46e7182">27% of energy consumption to come from renewable sources by 2030</a></p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T13:29:15.325Z">1.29pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Thanks for following the liveblog. I'm going to close it now, as we switch over to coverage in our news stories.&nbsp;</p><p>Here's the top of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/22/eu-carbon-emissions-climate-deal-2030"><strong>Fiona Harvey's</strong> report</a>, which we'll be updating throughout the afternoon:</p><p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/europe-news">Europe</a>&nbsp;will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, the toughest&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-change">climate change</a>&nbsp;target of any region in the world, and will produce 27% of its&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/energy">energy</a>&nbsp;from renewable sources by the same date.</p><p>The landmark deal was reached after&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/21/eu-2030-carbon-targets-emissions">grinding negotiations dragged on</a>to the deadline of 11am on Wednesday, as warring factions within the<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/european-commission">European commission</a>&nbsp;and member states fought over whether to water down the proposals.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T13:18:46.551Z">1.18pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T13:10:28.236Z">1.10pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Nick Molho, head of climate and energy policy at WWF-UK, said:</p><p>It could of course have been worse but today’s announcement by the EU Commission is at the low end of what one can consider to be a credible EU response to the risks caused by climate change. A 40% greenhouse gas emission reduction target for 2030 also doesn’t provide a particularly strong market signal to the EU’s fast growing low-carbon sector, as the EU is likely to have achieved 30% emission reductions by 2020 given the impact of the economic slowdown. However, the UK government deserves credit for having pushed for a more ambitious figure in the run-up to today’s announcement.</p><p>After a heated internal debate on whether to propose a very unambitious or just an unambitious climate and energy framework for 2030, the Commission has chosen the latter.</p><p>Given the scale of current UK ambition, the key for UK manufacturers is less the final target announced by the Commission and more the UK Government’s reaction to it. It has been clear for a while that others in Europe have little appetite to match the UK’s binding 50% target and this announcement merely serves as confirmation. Government must act now in its review of the forth carbon budget to bring the UK back in line with Europe and send a clear signal that it is committed to ensuring the UK will remain a competitive place to invest through the 2020s.</p><p>Billions of euros of private investment in the low-carbon transition could be unleashed if the 2030 target gives greater confidence to companies, particularly in the power sector, that the European Union is on an optimal path towards the long-term goal of reducing emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050 compared with 1990. China and many other countries recognise that the low-carbon transition will provide the economic growth story of the next few decades, and European countries will also gain from being at the forefront of this energy and industrial revolution. A strong emissions reduction target would also mean that the European Union can exert leadership in the international negotiations over a new climate treaty to be signed in Paris in 2015</p><p>“Today’s announcement follows a thorough assessment and over a year of extensive public consultation involving a diverse range of participants including national governments, the energy industry, NGOs and environmental organisations, scientific experts, the business community as well as the general public. The European Commission has sought to strike a balance between Europe’s objectives of an environmentally sustainable, affordable and secure energy mix. However we will need to see how these guidelines are subsequently applied.”</p><p>"Once again it seems that the British Government has acted to undermine vital environmental legislation from the EU.</p><p>This Commission proposal on emissions reductions is far too weak. Greens would have liked to see a proposal for a 60% emission cut by 2030 rather than just 40%.</p><p>“At a time when green energy policy appears to be under fire in some quarters, the EU's reaffirmed commitment towards emissions reductions and a binding renewables target are a welcome sign. Whether these new targets are backed up by member states taking more immediate positive action remains to be seen.</p><p>“Long term policy certainty and stability are undeniably important in order to attract investment in the sector, so today’s announcements are most welcome. However, what is also needed urgently, if the lights are to be kept on, is brave policy making in the immediate term to continue to drive down the cost of renewable energy investment, make projects financially compelling and avoid passing the cost of a balanced energy future to the next generation of tax payers.”</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:50:59.286Z">12.50pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>What's next?&nbsp;</p><p>The EC's holding a press conference in London at 1pm GMT.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:47:59.677Z">12.47pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>The press conference has finished. Here's some more snap reaction via Twitter:</p><p>Overall this EU Comm has delivered best could be expected. Still opp to go further in int negs and, as w 2020, v likely to be overdelivered</p><p>Yeah <a href="https://twitter.com/CHedegaardEU">@CHedegaardEU</a> you did it: an already-achieved 2030 target for greenhouse gas reduction and weaker EU renewables and efficiency policy</p><p>In a 40% <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23eu2030&amp;src=hash">#eu2030</a> world, the UK's 4th carbon budget should now be more secure than ever</p><p>New EU renewables 'target' 2030 (27%) actually less ambitious than BP - an oil company - says will be achieved.</p><p>EU plan to cut carbon emissions 40% by 2030 has no form of legal targets to drive adoption of energy saving technol…<a href="http://t.co/QagaXsrDxf">http://t.co/QagaXsrDxf</a></p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:39:00.006Z">12.39pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Some more reaction, this from business, all quite damning so far. Though I suspect energy intensive industries and their representatives may strike a more welcoming note later in the day.</p><p>The CEO of the European Wind Energy Association, Thomas Becker, <a href="http://www.ewea.org/press-releases/detail/2014/01/22/eu-commission-turns-its-back-on-jobs-leadership-and-energy-security/">says</a>&nbsp;this of the lack of binding national targets on renewable energy:</p><p>"The previously far-sighted and ambitious European Commission is a shadow of its former self, hiding behind the UK and other backward-looking Member States and lobbies. By effectively advocating repatriation of energy policy to Member States, President Barroso appears to have forgotten his previous calls for "more European integration" on energy policy."</p><p>Today’s proposal falls short of expectations of European companies looking for a strong framework to invest and innovate in Europe. The omission of a binding energy efficiency target is particularly disappointing. European policy-makers must realise that Europe will never lead on cheap energy and must lead on least consumed energy - energy efficiency is a key driver in making Europe more competitive and energy-independent.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:34:24.787Z">12.34pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Barroso was getting quite passionate and almost a little shrill there on the difficulty of getting a 40% carbon cut. From his tone, it doesn't sound like agreeing the deal presented today has been easy.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:33:13.824Z">12.33pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Hedegaard: I would be very, very happy if Europe very soon agrees that this [40% carbon cut], what we are proposing today, is the level.&nbsp;</p><p>Barroso: We are having first European council meeting in March [on this subject]. Reality is that some member states would prefer not to go so far. They would prefer to be below 40%. And there is a discussionin society. No capital was suggesting more than 40%. Even the more committed leaders in terms of climate action. No one was suggesting more than 40%. One important point that we should have in mind is that this is a package.&nbsp;</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:28:08.715Z">12.28pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Lot of pushback from Hedegaard and Barroso against criticism that the carbon target is not ambitious enough.</p><p>Hedegaard:</p><p>Be honest, that is my message to the NGOs [calling for 55% carbon cut]. 40% is a big thing, not a small thing.&nbsp;</p><p>Of course we remain committed to 2C goal [of keeping temperature rises below 2C above pre-industrial levels]. If now, EU adopted zero emissions for 2030, unfortunately that would not solve the problem. Tomorrow I will be in Davos with Ban Ki-moon, announcing some of these proposals. I will be so happy if some of our partners will be making something comparable, that would help solve the problem. With 40%, we are shaping the debate, while some other partners are, I'm sad to say, backtracking. They are in fact giving up on, for instance, the Kyoto commitments [he appears to be referring to Canada, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-withdrawal-kyoto-protocol">which dropped out of the Kyoto protocol in 2011</a>]. This is important to bear in mind when you are having a serious discussion of these matters.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:22:45.783Z">12.22pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Some reaction from green NGOs and politicans, which has mostly been very negative:</p><p>Green environment and public health spokesperson Carl Schlyter, said:</p><p>Serious proposals on shale gas and fracking would have to include binding measures. This includes compulsory environmental impact assessments (including for exploration), clear separation distances and bans in environmentally-sensitive areas. In failing to regulate, the Commission is essentially promoting new, high-risk fossil fuel extraction in Europe. This is a blow for European citizens and the environment. Pushing ahead with shale gas extraction is a waste of effort and capital at a time when we need to be looking for ways to use less, not more fossil fuels.</p><p>After months of bickering and in-fighting the European commission has produced a set of proposals that will satisfy almost no-one. They will do little to tackle climate change and in their current form give little certainty to Europe’s once thriving but now fragile clean tech sector. They would also leave European consumers hopelessly exposed to rising fossil fuel prices, which is what drove up energy bills in the first place.</p><p>The commission has set out its broken stall – it’s now up to Europe’s elected leaders to fix it. They must agree to cut greenhouse gases by at least 55% by 2030 if they wish to play a meaningful role in a new global climate deal and help reduce the devastating impacts of extreme weather. They must also put in place a renewables policy that will give genuine confidence to those wishing to invest in Europe. Anything less will see Europe fall further and further behind the US and China in the global race for clean energy markets.</p><p>Shale gas regulations have been fracked to pieces by corporations and fossil fuel-fixated governments. Insufficient and non-binding recommendations and monitoring mean fracking will go ahead improperly regulated and local communities will be the ones who suffer. Europe is putting the fox in charge of the hen house.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:20:03.956Z">12.20pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Oettinger: our forecasts tell us about 33% of our energy will come renewable sources by 2030. So if we can go to at least 27%, in electricity sector, we'll be at 35%. If you compare that with other continents, I think that is unique.</p><p>One member state is 90% coal, another is 76% nuclear [he's referring to Poland and France, respectively]</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:16:03.021Z">12.16pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Arthur Neslen of Euractiv asks why the renewables target is relatively low.</p><p>Barroso:</p><p>The 27% of renewables is function of 40% greenhouse gas reduction. So it's not business as usual. In our analysis, we have set the target that is compatible with 40% emissions reduction.</p><p>What matters is the effective reduction of greenhouse gases... we can do it in different manners, through emissions trading, through increase in renewables, through energy efficiency</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:10:56.514Z">12.10pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Hedegaard's finished and we're on to questions from the media now.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:10:31.106Z">12.10pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Hedegaard: If all other big economies in the world do a relatively ambitious effort equal to what we are proposing, the world will be in a better state when it comes to combating climate change</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:08:33.750Z">12.08pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Hedegaard is speaking now: I knew my colleagues in the commission and the president's commitment to climate change well enough, to give it a try [to get tough targets].</p><p>We have made it possible for EU to play its role to the full in the runup to the climate conference in Paris. For the world to believe in Paris in 2015, we need Europe to pull its full strength.&nbsp;</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:05:32.709Z">12.05pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Oettinger:&nbsp;Poland, Lithuania and the UK want to forge ahead in this area [shale gas]</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T12:02:25.042Z">12.02pm <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Oettinger on renewables target:</p><p>It's a binding target of at least 27%. This commission and future commissions are committed to that objective, and that applies to council and parliament as well. Actors will have to work towards this move from 20% [in 2020] to 27% in the next decade.&nbsp;</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:58:33.373Z">11.58am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Oettinger: As far as investors in the energy sector are concerned, 2020 has suddenly turned into yesterday evening and 2030 is almost there.</p><p>So this is the right time to put forward a package...</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:55:54.808Z">11.55am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Barroso is wrapping up and passing over to the commissioners. I'll round up reaction shortly.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:55:02.317Z">11.55am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Barroso: Let me conclude on why we are doing this now.</p><p>2020 is basically around the corner. So we need already to prepare for 2030.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:52:40.452Z">11.52am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Barroso: Shale gas is in many ways changing the landscape of energy in some parts of the world, also with important consequences [on energy prices]</p><p>We need a Europe-wide baseline on environmental rules</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:52:29.396Z">11.52am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Barroso: today we are tabling draft legislation on EU ETS to address the supply/demand mismatch</p><p>We do not intend to change the market</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:48:08.842Z">11.48am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Apologies if I miss the odd passage from Barroso - the livestream is proving extremely flaky and keeps cutting out.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:47:12.626Z">11.47am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Barroso: The goal is <em>at least</em> 27% renewables</p><p>We cannot reach emissions target without renewables</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:44:48.454Z">11.44am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Barroso:&nbsp;We can do this [action on climate change] in a way that is beneficial beyond doubt</p><p>This 2030 proposal is critically important</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:42:33.457Z">11.42am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Barroso is speaking now, about the protests in Ukraine, saying the authorities should "deescalate" the crisis.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:39:49.513Z">11.39am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Bit of context – 40% by 2030 shouldn't be a big deal for the UK, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions">which committed two years ago to a 50% cut by 2050</a> (albeit after a lot of coalition infighting).&nbsp;</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:36:10.238Z">11.36am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Hedegaard is happy, judging from the smiley in her latest tweet on the deal:</p><p>We got it: 40% GHG and AT LEAST 27% RES as a BINDING EU TARGET :-) <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23EU2030&amp;src=hash">#EU2030</a></p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:34:23.001Z">11.34am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p><strong>Fiona Harvey</strong> says the commissioners are on the phone to member states.&nbsp;</p><p>She also notes that the renewable target may not equate to a 27% target for the UK:&nbsp;</p><p>An interesting question regarding the renewables target will be what share the UK takes. The 27% target will be the total across all member states.</p><p>For the 2020 target, the UK only has to produce 15% of energy from renewables, though the overall EU target is 20%.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:29:17.883Z">11.29am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Somewhat bafflingly, the EC has removed its press release. They can't still be arguing about the numbers, can they? We'll soon see if anything's changed when it puts out a new version – we've taken a copy of the original release.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:26:14.976Z">11.26am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>A 40% cut is unlikely to satisfy climate scientists. Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre, who's very respected but at the radical end of the spectrum, <a href="http://kevinanderson.info/blog/open-letter-to-the-eu-commission-president-about-the-unscientific-framing-of-its-2030-decarbonisation-target/">has written an open latter to Barroso</a>, saying he wants an 80% cut by 2030. That was never on the cards, politically, but it still gives a sense of the gap between the science and politics here:</p><p>Global emissions today are 60% higher than at the time of the first IPCC report in 1990, and in the six years since the last IPCC report (AR4) a further 200 billion tonnes of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere. As a result, in 2013 the scale of mitigation required is now an order of magnitude more challenging than it was in 1990. The EU must acknowledge this reality if it is ever to catalyse meaningful action on climate change. This demands the courage to pursue an equitable and science-based 2030 decarbonisation target of around 80%. Anything less and the EU will renege on its 2°C commitments and, as the Commission rightly notes, bequeath to future generations a legacy of “devastating impacts”.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:22:02.015Z">11.22am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Digital campaigners Avaaz say Barroso has ignored the 260,000 people who sent him personal messages calling for a 50% carbon cut, rather than 40%.&nbsp;</p><p>Alex Wilks, its campaign director, says:</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:16:33.367Z">11.16am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Here's what the commissioners are saying of the deal.</p><p>Hedegaard:&nbsp;</p><p>In spite of all those arguing that nothing ambitious would come out of the Commission today, we did it. A 40% emissions reduction is the most cost-effective target for the EU and it takes account of our global responsibility.</p><p>My aim is to make sure that energy remains affordable for households and companies. The 2030 framework sets a high level of ambition for action against climate change, but it also recognises that this needs to be achieved at least cost.&nbsp;</p><p>"Climate action is central for the future of our planet, while a truly European energy policy is key for our competitiveness. Today's package proves that tackling the two issues simultaneously is not contradictory, but mutually reinforcing."</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:10:20.378Z">11.10am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>The press conference is still late to start, but that's not stopped the European Commission <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-54_en.htm">putting out a press release</a> confirming the news that Fiona Harvey just broke.&nbsp;</p><p>It says:</p><p>A reduction in greenhouse gas&nbsp;(GHG)&nbsp;emissions by 40% below the 1990 level, an EU-wide binding target for renewable energy to 27%, renewed ambitions for energy efficiency policies, a new governance system and a set of new indicators to ensure a competitive and secure energy system. These are the pillars of the new EU framework on climate and energy for 2030 presented today by the European Commission.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:06:54.058Z">11.06am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p><strong>Fiona Harvey</strong> says the agreement went down to the wire and was only made in the last few minutes. She says:</p><p>• 40% emissions cut</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:04:44.215Z">11.04am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>The AFP news agency is tweeting what we expected and basically knew already – that a 40% emissions target for 2030 is on the cards.</p><p><a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23BREAKING&amp;src=hash">#BREAKING</a> European Commission seeks 2030 CO2 reduction target of 40%: EU source</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T11:01:18.131Z">11.01am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p><strong>Fiona Harvey</strong> is hearing from Brussels sources that the renewable target will be binding after all. We'll know for certain in a minute – the press conference should kick off very shortly <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/ebs/live.cfm?page=1">here</a>.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T10:55:34.494Z">10.55am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Here's a roundup from Twitter. The Greens in European parliament say "signs are not good", while the the head of Friends of the Earth in the UK says "EU must show global leadership on energy targets."</p><p>NGOs now protesting about the lack of ambition of the 2030 EU climate and energy package at the berlaymont <a href="http://t.co/iRJhc8hiol">pic.twitter.com/iRJhc8hiol</a></p><p>Blunt from <a href="https://twitter.com/CHedegaardEU">@CHedegaardEU</a> "maybe we should start talking about the risks of carbon leakage in the EU" - <a href="http://t.co/RWyE4xuzGn">http://t.co/RWyE4xuzGn</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23EU2030&amp;src=hash">#EU2030</a></p><p>Big day for EU climate and energy policy, with the Commission to outline it's 2030 framework and proposals on shale gas. Signs are not good</p><p>EU must show global leadership on energy targets – we risk failure on climate change without strong carbon emissions target</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T10:43:23.509Z">10.43am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>The EU has three existing targets for 2020:</p><p>GRAPH: How the EU has almost met its 2020 carbon target already: <a href="http://t.co/VMUMk1zMtr">pic.twitter.com/VMUMk1zMtr</a></p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T10:29:55.595Z">10.29am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Another part of this morning's package is a report on energy prices. The Euractiv news service has seen a draft of the document, which reportedly highlights how uncompetitive the EU's energy prices have become with other regions, in particular the US:</p><p>Europe’s industrial electricity price is twice that in the US and 20% higher than in China – and that the figure is widening.</p><p>Similarly, the Ecfin paper finds that Europe has higher real energy prices than its competitors, and that renewable generation increases consumer electricity bills.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T10:22:43.667Z">10.22am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>Dr Oliver Geden, from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25828181">tells the BBC</a> that these 2030 targets are being set in a distinctly different political climate to when the 2020 ones were set seven years ago:</p><p>We are moving from an ambitious targets and timetables approach to a classical muddling through approach.&nbsp;It is a changed world, it is not just about the financial crisis, it is also the result of changes in international climate policy.&nbsp;There is not the 'we can change the world' optimism, they are retreating a little.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T10:16:26.508Z">10.16am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>I'm hearing from sources in Europe that a 40% emissions target is what&nbsp;Barroso will announce alongside energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, and commissioner for climate action, Connie Hedegaard.&nbsp;</p><p>On the renewable energy front, it looks like there will be a target of 25-27% of energy coming from renewable sources by 2030. But it'll be a non-binding one – i.e. a non-target-target.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2014-01-22T10:03:30.085Z">10.03am <span class="timezone">GMT</span></time> </p><p>This morning, Europe will lay out its plan to tackle climate change over the next 16 years.&nbsp;</p><p>All the signs are that we'll see a watering down of ambition compared to <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/">the existing set of targets for 2020</a> on carbon emissions, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Though Tony Blair hailed them at the time as&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/mar/09/europeanunion.eu">"groundbreaking, bold and ambitious"</a> when they were set in 2007, it's become clear the 2020 target of cutting carbon emissions 20% on 1990 levels was too low – the bloc is on course for more like 25% by 2020.</p><p>At least five commissioners are understood by the Guardian to be holding out against the 40% target, encouraged by the UK's stance. The Guardian understands that the European commission's president, Jose Manuel Barroso, is now poised to intervene in the row, and may ditch plans for a renewable energy target in order to seal a deal on the 40% emissions reduction.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/22/eu-energy-and-climate-targets-live">Continue reading...</a>Greenhouse gas emissionsClimate changeEnvironmentEuropeWorld newsRenewable energyWed, 22 Jan 2014 13:31:58 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/22/eu-energy-and-climate-targets-livePhotograph: dpa picture alliance archive / A/AlamyWind turbines in front of the RWE brown coal-fired power plant near Bergheim, Germany. The EU will decide on its 2030 carbon target on Wednesday. Photograph: dpa picture alliance archive/A/AlamyPhotograph: dpa picture alliance archive / A/AlamyWind turbines in front of the RWE brown coal-fired power plant near Bergheim, Germany. The EU will decide on its 2030 carbon target on Wednesday. Photograph: dpa picture alliance archive/A/AlamyAdam Vaughan2014-01-22T13:31:58ZEurope must set a new renewable energy target | John Sauvenhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/20/europe-must-set-a-new-renewable-energy-target
<p>The UK will face the consequences in lost jobs and investment if the EU doesn't agree a 2030 renewables goal</p><p>Ministers and their EU colleagues are on&nbsp;the cusp of a decision which could undermine our energy security, push up the cost of power and weaken efforts to tackle climate change.&nbsp;</p><p>As the deadline draws near for the government to decide whether or not to stick&nbsp;with European targets for renewable energy, the consequences of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/20/european-greens-threaten-uk-government-shale-tax-breaks">this government’s opposition to a binding goal for 2030</a> need to be spelled out.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/20/europe-must-set-a-new-renewable-energy-target">Continue reading...</a>EnvironmentRenewable energyWind powerWave and tidal powerSolar powerGasCoalGreenhouse gas emissionsEuropeWorld newsCarbon capture and storage (CCS)Climate changeMon, 20 Jan 2014 10:38:04 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/20/europe-must-set-a-new-renewable-energy-targetPhotograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesWind turbines at the London Array project. Europe needs a 2030 renewable energy target, says the head of Greenpeace UK Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesPhotograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesWind turbines at the London Array project. Europe needs a 2030 renewable energy target, says the head of Greenpeace UK Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesJohn Sauven2014-01-20T10:38:04ZFracking bribes will tie us into a future of high energy prices | Natalie Bennetthttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/13/fracking-bribes-high-energy-prices
<p>The UK government is steaming ahead with shale gas &ndash; while failing to support renewable energy and energy efficiency</p><p>Today, the government is<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25705550"> offering</a> local communities and local governments what can only be described as bribes, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/13/fracking-shale-gas-incentives-councils">for councils to be able to keep the business rates</a>, and local communities to get what it says up to £10 million a year in return for allowing shale gas fracking in their areas.</p><p>It reflects clear desperation in the face of the strong resistance to its disturbing allegiance to fossil fuels, particularly astonishing in the Lib Dem energy minister, Ed “<a href="http://www.energylivenews.com/2013/07/10/i-love-shale-gas-davey-confirms-again/">I love shale gas</a>”&nbsp;Davey.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/13/fracking-bribes-high-energy-prices">Continue reading...</a>EnergyRenewable energyEnergy efficiencySolar powerWind powerGasClimate changeGreenhouse gas emissionsMon, 13 Jan 2014 14:33:18 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/13/fracking-bribes-high-energy-pricesPhotograph: LINDSEY PARNABY/AFP/Getty ImagesDavid Cameron is taken on a guided tour of the IGas shale drilling plant oil depot near Gainsborough, Lincolnshire on January 13, 2014. Photograph: LINDSEY PARNABY/AFP/Getty ImagesPhotograph: LINDSEY PARNABY/AFP/Getty ImagesDavid Cameron is taken on a guided tour of the IGas shale drilling plant oil depot near Gainsborough, Lincolnshire on January 13, 2014. Photograph: LINDSEY PARNABY/AFP/Getty ImagesNatalie Bennett2014-01-13T14:33:18ZThe US and China must show leadership on climate change | Nicholas Sternhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/dec/11/us-china-leadership-climate-change
As the European Union dithers, the world's two biggest carbon emitters must work together to help countries reach a climate deal<p>The world is approaching a watershed moment in its battle to limit the risks posed by global climate change, and international leadership from the United States is needed now more than ever before.</p><p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change">A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in September</a> warned that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are already raising temperatures, melting glaciers and the polar ice caps, elevating sea levels and changing the strength and frequency of many extreme weather events.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/dec/11/us-china-leadership-climate-change">Continue reading...</a>EnvironmentGlobal climate talksClimate changeNatural disasters and extreme weatherWorld newsUS newsChinaCOP 19: UN climate change conference | WarsawGreenhouse gas emissionsIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Renewable energyWed, 11 Dec 2013 16:54:38 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/dec/11/us-china-leadership-climate-changePhotograph: Dennis Brack/CorbisPresident Barack Obama makes a speech on a climate change. Photograph: Dennis Brack/CorbisPhotograph: Dennis Brack/CorbisPresident Barack Obama makes a speech on a climate change. Photograph: Dennis Brack/CorbisNicholas Stern2013-12-11T16:54:38ZAbundant fossil fuels leave clean energy out in the cold | Damian Kahyahttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/07/abundant-fossil-fuels-clean-energy
<p>From Cuadrilla’s well in West Sussex to Gazprom’s rig in the Arctic, unconventional sources of gas and oil are putting the transition to renewable energy at risk</p><p>In most respects Gazprom’s Prirazlomnaya oil platform has little in common with the small drilling rig which stood, for a while, near the English village of Balcombe.</p><p>The giant Russian structure, pieced together from parts of <a href="http://platformlondon.org/2011/09/12/prirazlomnaya-arctic-oil-suspicion/">a disused North Sea oil </a>operation, stands miles offshore in the ice infested waters of the frozen arctic. Cuadrilla’s attempt sat amidst a Christmas tree plantation near a brook and a small country lane. But both were instantly seen as something new.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/07/abundant-fossil-fuels-clean-energy">Continue reading...</a>Fossil fuelsOilArctic 30 protestersRenewable energyWind powerEnergyGreenhouse gas emissionsClimate changeSolar powerEnvironmentFrackingThu, 07 Nov 2013 11:16:17 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/07/abundant-fossil-fuels-clean-energyPhotograph: Denis Sinyakov/GreenpeaceA Russian Coast guard officer is seen pointing a gun at a Greenpeace activist as five activists attempt to climb the ‘Prirazlomnaya,’ an oil platform operated by Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom.Photograph: Denis Sinyakov/GreenpeaceA Russian Coast guard officer is seen pointing a gun at a Greenpeace activist as five activists attempt to climb the ‘Prirazlomnaya,’ an oil platform operated by Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom.Damian Kahya2013-11-07T11:16:17ZChina to invest in energy saving industries to tackle pollution | Jennifer Dugganhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2013/aug/14/china-investment-energy-saving-pollution
China's State Council announces plans to make green industries central to the economy by 2015<p>China is to fast-track expansion and investment in energy saving technologies in an attempt to tackle its worsening pollution problems. </p><p>China's cabinet, the State Council announced plans on Sunday to make the energy saving sector a "pillar" of the economy by 2015. In a statement the council said that under the new plan the environmental protection sector will grow by 15% on average annually, reaching an output of 4.5 trillion yuan (£474 billion). </p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2013/aug/14/china-investment-energy-saving-pollution">Continue reading...</a>PollutionEnvironmentSolar powerGreenhouse gas emissionsRenewable energyWorld newsChinaBusinessEnergyEnergy efficiencyEnergyWed, 14 Aug 2013 12:55:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2013/aug/14/china-investment-energy-saving-pollutionPhotograph: Chris Ison/PAChina is to invest in energy saving technologies including solar energy in an attempt to tackle pollution. Photograph: Chris Ison/PAPhotograph: Chris Ison/PAChina is to invest in energy saving technologies including solar energy in an attempt to tackle pollution. Photograph: Chris Ison/PAJennifer Duggan2013-08-14T12:55:00ZEnd this love for dirty fuelshttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/02/uk-shale-gas-fracking-renewables
The future belongs to clean energy, but the UK is embracing shale gas and fracking instead of renewables – appalling policy<p>That blaring noise you can hear could be the sound of the UK missing the boat. A succession of crises over more than a decade revealed the UK's dependence on fossil fuels, increasingly imported, to be both perilous and expensive. The fuel protests of 2000 showed the interconnected vulnerability of our food and fuel systems, while the oil price spike of 2008 revealed the economy as hostage to volatile market.</p><p>You'd think then, that if only as an exercise in prudent government – forget about climate change for a moment – aggressive energy diversification into abundant, domestic renewable sources would be a good idea.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/02/uk-shale-gas-fracking-renewables">Continue reading...</a>Renewable energyEnergyEnvironmentClimate changeNuclear powerFrackingFossil fuelsGasUK newsFri, 02 Aug 2013 05:59:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/02/uk-shale-gas-fracking-renewablesPhotograph: Amy Sussman/CorbisFracking equipment: shale gas is an inefficient fuel to exploit, and its extraction will accelerate climate change. Photograph: Amy Sussman/CorbisPhotograph: Amy Sussman/CorbisFracking equipment: shale gas is an inefficient fuel to exploit, and its extraction will accelerate climate change. Photograph: Amy Sussman/CorbisAndrew Simms2013-08-02T05:59:00ZThe World Bank is bringing back big, bad damshttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jul/16/world-bank-dams-africa
A renewed focus on mega-dams will make matters worse in Africa and benefit companies, not people<p>The big, bad dams of past decades are back in style.</p><p>In the 1950s and '60s, huge hydropower projects such as the Kariba, Akosombo and Inga dams were supposed to modernise poor African countries almost overnight. It didn't work out this way. As <a href="http://www.internationalrivers.org/node/2389" title="">the independent World Commission on Dams</a> found, such big, complex schemes cost far more but produce less energy than expected. Their primary beneficiaries are mining companies and aluminium smelters, while Africa's poor have been left high and dry.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jul/16/world-bank-dams-africa">Continue reading...</a>HydropowerEnvironmentEnergyRenewable energyWorld BankWorld newsDemocratic Republic of the CongoAfricaEnvironmental sustainabilityGlobal developmentTue, 16 Jul 2013 10:20:27 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jul/16/world-bank-dams-africaPhotograph: AlamyKariba dam, hydroelectric dam on the Zambezi River, Zimbabwe. Photograph: AlamyPhotograph: AlamyKariba dam, hydroelectric dam on the Zambezi River, Zimbabwe. Photograph: AlamyPeter Bosshard2013-07-16T10:20:27ZLet's not martyr the white-throated needletail to the anti-wind cause | Harry Huytonhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jun/28/white-throated-needletail-wind-turbines
The death of any bird is tragic, but when it comes to climate change we are talking about extinction of whole species<p>This week an extraordinary animal paid a visit to our shores. The elegant and lightning-fast <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-throated_Needletail" title="">white-throated needletail</a> breeds mostly in China and migrates to Australia, so it was unusual sight dancing around the Isle of Harris in Scotland. The spectacle attracted birders from across the country and created a flurry of activity online as the lucky few <a href="]" title="">shared their extraordinary images</a>.</p><p>Sadly, the poor bird met an untimely end. A long way from home, presumably disoriented and exhausted from its journey that had brought it to the other side of the world from its kin, it flew into a small community wind turbine and died immediately.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jun/28/white-throated-needletail-wind-turbines">Continue reading...</a>EnvironmentBirdsWildlifeAnimalsWind powerEnergyRenewable energyClimate changeFri, 28 Jun 2013 13:51:25 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jun/28/white-throated-needletail-wind-turbinesPhotograph: guardian.co.ukThe white-throated needletail bird was killed by a wind turbine. Photograph: guardian.co.ukPhotograph: guardian.co.ukThe white-throated needletail bird was killed by a wind turbine. Photograph: guardian.co.ukHarry Huyton2013-06-28T13:51:25ZSolar power still better than nuclear in the fight against climate changehttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jun/24/solar-nuclear-power-climate-change
I concede I've lost the £100 bet, but it's a folly to put faith in costly reactors to cut emissions<p>George Monbiot <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/jun/21/solar-power-wind-nuclear-carbon-electricity" title="">claims in a gentlemanly article</a> to have won our £100 bet, made three years ago, that solar PV would be at grid parity – the same cost as conventional retail electricity – by 2013.</p><p>The very good news is that over the past three years, the actual average price of installed residential solar PV has come down some 60%, while the cost of new nuclear has gone up 70% and is still rising. I base the former on the real achievement at my company Solarcentury and the latter on a recent compilation in <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2012/12/05/flamanville-une-decennie-de-peripeties-politico-industrielles_1799792_823448.html" title="">Le Monde</a> of data for EDF's Flamanville EPR reactor, the type of nuclear plant nuclear advocates like George want to foist on the UK economy at great cost to the public, starting at Hinkley Point.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jun/24/solar-nuclear-power-climate-change">Continue reading...</a>Solar powerClimate changeNuclear powerEnvironmentEnergyRenewable energyUK newsNetherlandsWorld newsMon, 24 Jun 2013 11:05:52 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jun/24/solar-nuclear-power-climate-changePhotograph: Michaela Rehle/ReutersThe price of residential solar PV has fallen by 60% in three years, according to industry data. Photograph: Michaela Rehle/ReutersPhotograph: Michaela Rehle/ReutersThe price of residential solar PV has fallen by 60% in three years, according to industry data. Photograph: Michaela Rehle/ReutersJeremy Leggett2013-06-24T11:05:52ZWill green energy prove cheaper than gas?https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/may/23/green-energy-cheaper-gas-bills
The Committee on Climate Change argues that, in the long term, low-carbon energy will cost less than gas. Leo Hickman, with your help, investigates. Post your views below, email <a href="mailto:leo.hickman@guardian.co.uk">leo.hickman@guardian.co.uk</a> or tweet <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/leohickman">@LeoHickman</a><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T16:03:02.171Z">5.03pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>As I <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/mar/27/climate-policies-lower-energy-bills#block-5153275ab5791610ecc9c466">said back in March</a> when the Department of Energy and Climate Change released its predictions for how its climate policies would impact energy bills up to 2030, I am instinctively suspicious of any claims to know what energy prices might be decades away from now. There are simply too many variables at play.</p><p>However, what I think today's report does do well is emphasise how (most) low-carbon technologies, once installed and running, see their on-going costs fall considerably, unlike sources such as gas which will forever be vulnerable to market volatility, with or without "miracles" such as fracking.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T15:08:16.316Z">4.08pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>Yesterday, <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/">José Manuel Barroso</a>, the EU president, gave a presentation (<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/archives/2013/05/pdf/energy_en.pdf">pdf</a>) to the European Council entitled, "Energy Priorities for Europe". It is worth looking at slide 7, "Will there ever be cheap energy for Europe?"...</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T14:43:48.445Z">3.43pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>Back in February, the Guardian produced this <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/feb/29/electricity-generating-costs">interactive graphic</a> using data supplied by <a href="http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/robert.gross">Dr Robert Gross</a>, the director of Imperial College London's <a href="http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/icept">Centre for Energy Policy and Technology</a>. It shows the "cost of energy from wind and gas - now and then".</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T14:36:29.604Z">3.36pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>Prof Jim Watson, research director at the <a href="http://www.ukerc.ac.uk">UK Energy Research Centre</a>, has sent me this reaction:</p><p>Their analysis is very important, and it points to a key issue in the debate - i.e. the need to compare the costs of investing in low-carbon energy infrastructure to meet the UK climate change targets with the costs of alternative strategies which risk not meeting these targets. Often the counterfactual costs of not investing in a low-carbon energy system are missing from this debate. The CCC's central conclusion that investing in low-carbon electricity generation is likely to be cheaper than continued reliance on gas is, as the committee argue, evidence based. It reaches a similar conclusion to recent UKERC analysis in its support for a 2030 electricity decarbonisation target.</p><p>However, it is also important to acknowledge the uncertainties in the CCC analysis: if gas prices turn out to be much lower than expected and the costs of new low carbon technologies are much higher than expected (which is a distinct possibility), a different conclusion could be reached. It would be unwise to assume that there will be substantial falls in UK gas prices in the short-to-medium term - whether from the development of UK shale gas (which is itself highly uncertain) or from a general downward shift in international prices.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T14:23:16.724Z">3.23pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>Here are the thoughts of Dr Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the <a href="http://www.ccsassociation.org/">Carbon Capture and Storage Association</a>:</p><p>We welcome the publication of the committee’s report on how government should resolve the uncertainties within the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/maintaining-uk-energy-security--2/supporting-pages/electricity-market-reform">EMR framework</a>. In particular, the committee’s analysis shows that up to 3GW of CCS should be contracted for in the first EMR delivery plan to 2019 – this would imply that all current proposed CCS projects should be built, including the two in the current CCS competition, as well as those outside the competition.</p><p>However, at present there is little detail about the process for the projects outside the competition and we are seriously concerned that without further clarity for these projects in the near future, the sponsoring companies will be unable to justify continued investment.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T13:49:52.057Z">2.49pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>One section (pg23, <a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1720_EMR_report_web.pdf">pdf</a>) of the CCC's report is particularly interesting in that it breaks down why it believes (relying on Pöyry's analysis, see my <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/may/23/green-energy-cheaper-gas-bills#block-519e10a3e4b0e392888614da">earlier comment</a>) costs will fall varyingly for the different low-carbon technologies:</p><p>Pöyry identify potential for the costs of all technologies to come down in future through a combination of learning in deployment and de-risking leading to reductions in the cost of capital. The less-mature technologies offer the biggest opportunities for cost reduction through both of these mechanisms.</p><p>The scenarios involve limited roll-out of other renewables (e.g. marine technologies, solar) given currently high costs and limited use of imported low-carbon electricity.</p><p>Costs for projects starting construction in 2030. Excludes biomass conversion which comes on in 2010s. Fuel price assumptions consistent with latest DECC Projections (October 2012). Carbon price rises in line with Carbon Price Floor, to £76/t in 2030; beyond 2030 rises in line with Government ‘central’ carbon price values (£147/t in 2040 and £217/t in 2050). Cost over project lifetime assuming pre-tax real rate of return of 9% for unabated gas, 9.1% onshore, 9.1% offshore, 9.2% nuclear, 10% CCS. Solid boxes represent range for high/low capex and central fuel prices (central load factor for wind); thin extending lines show sensitivity to combined high/low capex and high/low fuel prices (high/low load factor for wind).</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T13:22:46.597Z">2.22pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>Here is the view of&nbsp;Dr Gordon Edge, <a href="http://www.renewableuk.com/">RenewableUK</a>’s director of policy:</p><p>This thorough research by the most authoritative body in its field provides compelling evidence that investment in British renewables is cost-effective, whereas an unhealthy addiction to foreign fossil fuels is excruciatingly expensive, as well as being deeply irresponsible.</p><p>The Committee on Climate Change is also right to highlight the fact that the current lack of a long-term political vision is jeopardising investment in renewable energy projects - including the development of the supply chain which could create tens of thousands of jobs in wind and marine energy, with turbine factories opening around the UK.&nbsp;</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T12:50:44.283Z">1.50pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>A niggle to note: the CCC report relies heavily on commissioned research by <a href="http://www.poyry.co.uk/">Pöyry</a>, a management consultancy that specialises in the energy sector. But, rather irritatingly, we can't inspect that research for the <a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/next-steps-on-electricity-market-reform-23-may-2013/">following reason</a>:</p><p>Supporting research:- Pöyry (2012) Technology supply curves for low-carbon generation – a report to the Committee on Climate Change (coming soon)</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T12:44:28.451Z">1.44pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>James Murray, editor of <a href="http://www.businessgreen.com">BusinessGreen</a>, has been looking at the report, as well as speaking to the CCC's David Kennedy. The <a href="http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2269638/climate-committee-warns-dash-for-gas-more-costly-than-low-carbon-energy-mix">article is paywalled</a>, but here's an extract:</p><p>Speaking to&nbsp;<em>BusinessGreen</em>, CCC chief executive David Kennedy acknowledged some commentators have been advocating precisely that course of action, calling for the world to give up on tackling climate change, but he argued that such an outcome was hugely unlikely.</p><p>"We have a Climate Change Act that is in primary legislation and which the government is committed to - we are planning for a carbon constrained world," he said, adding that the European Commission was currently working on ambitious new emission targets for 2030 and the US and China were sending "encouraging signs" about their commitment to climate action. "There is no reason to assume we will not still be in a carbon constrained world through the 2020s and 2030s"...</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T12:31:36.300Z">1.31pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>Michelle Hubert, the <a href="http://www.cbi.org.uk/">CBI'</a>s principal policy adviser on energy and climate change, has sent me her reaction:</p><p>The report rightly highlights the importance of finding the most cost-effective route to building a low-carbon economy and the potential benefits on offer to businesses and consumers if we get this right. We need a huge amount of private capital flowing into our energy system to ensure we keep the lights on in an affordable and sustainable way. Our priority must be to get the energy bill onto the statute book as soon as possible to give investors the confidence they need.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T12:14:15.255Z">1.14pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>Here's what people have been saying on Twitter...</p><p>But AGAIN CCC @<a href="https://twitter.com/2050target">2050target</a> report casually dismisses solar. No excuse at this stage, especially when pushes nuclear: <a href="http://t.co/TRPV5dq0rW" title="http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1720_EMR_report_web.pdf">theccc.org.uk/wp-content/upl…</a></p><p>Surprised CCC report strong on investor sigs skims critical route-to-market &amp; PPA issues 4 independents!? @<a href="https://twitter.com/2050target">2050target</a> <a href="http://t.co/TRPV5dq0rW" title="http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1720_EMR_report_web.pdf">theccc.org.uk/wp-content/upl…</a></p><p>Govt: 'We'll wait til get more advice from CCC to set a <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%232030decarb">#2030decarb</a> target.' CCC: 'No need to wait for more advice, we've already told you.'</p><p>CCC wrong on PV today. Costs already half its figure.Output 2020 likely beaten by mid 2014. 200 farms in planning. Rare error,but serious.</p><p>CCC p41 shale gas could have economic benefits to the UK, in a manner consistent with our emissions targets @<a href="https://twitter.com/james_bg">james_bg</a> <a href="http://t.co/NcUOuJ9JMt" title="http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1720_EMR_report_web.pdf">theccc.org.uk/wp-content/upl…</a></p><p>Will be fascinating to see if the evidence presented by @<a href="https://twitter.com/2050target">2050target</a> today will have any impact on Treasury's position <a href="http://t.co/cFU7tOFLjj" title="http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2269638/climate-committee-warns-dash-for-gas-more-costly-than-low-carbon-energy-mix">businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/22…</a></p><p>Treasury and Osborne can't credibly support gas boom and climate targets - which way will they jump? <a href="http://t.co/cFU7tOFLjj" title="http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2269638/climate-committee-warns-dash-for-gas-more-costly-than-low-carbon-energy-mix">businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/22…</a></p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T11:54:14.250Z">12.54pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>The timing of the CCC's report is clearly an attempt - to my mind, at least - to influence MPs ahead of the looming energy bill vote, in particular with regard to the crucial issue of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/08/tory-mp-amendment-energy-bill">Tim Yeo's tabled amendment</a> which proposes a new target to cut power sector carbon intensity to 50gCO2/kWh by 2030. Without it, the CCC suggests, the drive towards adopting an ever-increasing amount of low-carbon energy sources in the decades ahead will be greatly hampered. Here's the wording from the report's executive summary (pg 9, <a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1720_EMR_report_web.pdf">pdf</a>):</p><p>We recommend the following package of measures that the Government should put in place to improve conditions for investment:</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T11:04:51.797Z">12.04pm <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>Nick Molho,&nbsp;head of energy and climate change policy at <a href="http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_centre/?uNewsID=6604">WWF-UK</a>, who I <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/may/23/green-energy-cheaper-gas-bills#block-519dec82e4b0371c681f9fe2">quoted earlier</a>, has sent me some further thoughts:</p><p>The recommendations of the CCC on long-term volume and financial certainty for new low-carbon technologies are spot on. If implemented, they could play a key role in accelerating the cost reductions of those technologies. A key component of reducing the costs of new technologies is not only through learning and economies of scale but it is also by reducing investors’ perception of political risk.</p><p>The Crown Estate found, for example, last year that for each 1% reduction in the costs of borrowing – a metric that is highly dependent on perception of risks – the costs of offshore wind were likely to go down by around 6%. So, stable policies that create a clear demand for low-carbon power in the long-term and provide stable financial support make sense in that they will have an important bearing in reducing risks for investors and, therefore, technological costs.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T10:58:47.173Z">11.58am <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>As ever, <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org">Carbon Brief</a> is quick off the mark with <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/05/climate-change-committee-report-on-emr">its analysis</a>. Robin Webster makes some crucial points and observations, so here's a fulsome extract, which includes a quote given to Carbon Brief by David Kennedy, the CCC's chief executive:</p><p>The CCC is scathing about the government's <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65654/7165-gas-generation-strategy.pdf"> gas strategy</a>, launched last December. The gas strategy suggested three possible futures for UK energy policy - including a 'dash for gas' scenario where significantly more gas generation would be built. Publishing "such widely varying scenarios for sector development" has created confusion amongst investors, the committee says.&nbsp;</p><p>There are some similarities between the gas strategy and the CCC's modelling. Both documents suggests that the country could reduce the power sector's emissions intensity to 100g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour by 2030 - and still hit its emissions targets.&nbsp;</p><p>The CCC contrasts the government's approach with its own, saying:</p><p>"...a scenario with high nuclear deployment, but low investment in CCS and offshore wind during the 2020s (e.g. as assumed in the government's emissions projections) could deliver a similar emissions intensity but would leave the UK overly reliant on a single low-carbon technology. This would imply unacceptable costs and risks of achieving the 2050 target and/or of very high electricity prices required to deploy uncommercialised low-carbon options at scale after 2030."</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T10:28:54.500Z">11.28am <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>Here's an extract from the report's foreword (<a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1720_EMR_report_web.pdf">pdf</a>) by Lord Deben (John Gummer, the former environment secretary), the CCC's chairman:</p><p>This report shows that there is a clear benefit in committing to invest in low-carbon generation over the next two decades. This extension of the time frame beyond 2020 will encourage the necessary investment at a very limited additional cost to the consumer, adding £20 to the annual household energy bill in 2030 compared to 2020, while offering significant cost savings thereafter.<br>This conclusion has been reached after considering whether an alternative strategy of investing in gas-fired generation through the 2020s and delaying investment in low-carbon technologies to the 2030s would be more sensible. The detailed analysis shows that to invest in low-carbon technologies to 2020, then to focus on investment in gas in the 2020s, and to move back to investment in low-carbon generation in the 2030s simply doesn’t stand up. Such an approach is likely to drive up costs, by up to £100 billion in some scenarios.<br>It is therefore important to avoid these unnecessary costs by resolving present uncertainties. The government should state clearly that it intends to support investments in low-carbon technologies through the 2020s. We think that the best way to do this is to set in legislation this parliament a target to reduce 2030 carbon intensity to 50 gCO2/kWh. Industry has been clear that this would provide them with the confidence that they need to invest large amounts of money in project development and the supply chain.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T10:16:34.932Z">11.16am <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>Here's a summary of the reaction to today's CCC report...</p><p><strong>Ed Davey, the energy secretary, in the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/switch-to-lowcarbon-future-would-save-households-1600-8628138.html">Independent</a></strong>: “In the long term, low-carbon could be a much cheaper path to go. Our opponents don’t want to admit that we really do care about people’s bills, but actually I’m the consumer’s champion here. The real reason for high energy bills is high global gas prices. I can’t control global gas prices but I can put a cushion between the high global gas price that people face and the bills consumers pay,” in part by supporting low-carbon power generation, he added.</p><p class="block-time published-time"> <time datetime="2013-05-23T09:26:17.730Z">10.26am <span class="timezone">BST</span></time> </p><p>The <a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/">Committee on Climate Change</a>, which advises the UK government on meeting its emissions targets, has today <a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/next-steps-on-electricity-market-reform-23-may-2013/">published a report</a> outlining why investing in low-carbon technologies will, over the longer term, be more cost effective than gas.</p><p>As Fiona Harvey in the Guardian <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/23/renewable-energy-committee-climate-change">reports</a>:</p><p>The sooner the UK makes large investments in low-carbon generation – including offshore and onshore wind, nuclear power and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy">energy</a> from waste – the cheaper it will be, according to David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).</p><p>The conclusions are likely to be controversial, as many MPs on the right of the Tory party have been clamouring for an end to onshore windfarms and reductions in renewable subsidies.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/may/23/green-energy-cheaper-gas-bills">Continue reading...</a>EnvironmentGasGreenhouse gas emissionsCarbon capture and storage (CCS)Renewable energyWind powerNuclear powerSolar powerBiomass and bioenergyThu, 23 May 2013 16:03:02 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/may/23/green-energy-cheaper-gas-billsPhotograph: Haydn West /Rex FeaturesA wind farm at Camber in Kent. Photograph: Haydn West /Rex FeaturesPhotograph: Haydn West /Rex FeaturesA wind farm at Camber in Kent. Photograph: Haydn West /Rex FeaturesLeo Hickman2013-05-23T16:03:02ZGriff Rhys-Jones ignores the fact that someone has to live near solar farms | Jeremy Leggetthttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/may/15/griff-rhys-jones-live-solar-farms
Comedian opposes Tattingstone solar farm but it's not clear how he'd keep the lights on and tackle climate change<p>In <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-22524889">opposing a solar farm near his home in Suffolk</a>, Griff Rhys-Jones makes the point that the government is struggling with its energy policy, and has made a "willy nilly" decision to allow such developments. I feel like saying to Griff, look we need lots of solar, and it's got to be near someone.</p><p>The government is indeed struggling with its energy policy. So are most if not all other governments. Many countries live with the threat of their lights going out. All countries live with the threat of unchecked climate change. For we are en route both to recurrent energy crisis and to six degrees of global warming, unless we accelerate the deployment of low carbon technologies like solar.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/may/15/griff-rhys-jones-live-solar-farms">Continue reading...</a>Solar powerEnergyRenewable energyUK newsGriff Rhys JonesWed, 15 May 2013 14:52:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/may/15/griff-rhys-jones-live-solar-farmsPhotograph: BBCComedian Griff Rhys Jones has said he thinks Tattingstone solar farm should not be built. Photograph: BBCPhotograph: BBCComedian Griff Rhys Jones has said he thinks Tattingstone solar farm should not be built. Photograph: BBCJeremy Leggett2013-05-15T14:52:00Z